It goes much farther than that, as Dr Ben Carson so eloquently pointed out, the fact that the majority of Sanger's outreach was in the Poor BLACK communities points out emphatically her racist views(no different from Hitler's except for the chosen target). Dr Carson also pointed out that the majority of Planned Parenthood sites in large cities are located in predominantly black neighborhoods.

Unfortunately this is completely untrue. Makes for some opportune political grandstanding by the good doctor and many others of course. There is no evidence that Margaret Sanger was a racist, and if she spent more time in predominantly black neighbourhoods this would have been because they were the poorest and thus most in need of assistance.

---

I find it interesting to see the strict constitutionalists here have a cow over abortion. When the US constitution was adopted it was legal for the father, not the mother - women had no rights, to abort the baby until it reached the age of 21. Every time they bring up that the words of the Constitution must be strictly held as they were when written this should be shoved in their face.

Then we have the one cell freaks. Any human cell? So when a diabetic pricks their finger to test their sugar they are committing mass murder!* Using their logic, every time a woman has a period and expels an ova she has murdered a baby. So they believe a woman must get pregnant at every opportunity. Any time a man uses a condom he has committed mass murder. Then they have the gall to talk about unplanned pregnancy. https://www.google.com/search?q=every+sperm+is+sacred&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Then there are the ones who go for implantation into the wall of the uterus. Not any different than a tape worm in the gut. It is one way, a leech sucking life out of the host.

Most of them don't want to talk about it, and most refuse to even think about it, biology that is. Instead they drink the koolaid from the fairy in the sky and remain ignorant of science and AGW.**



Hence my question to eye which he did not answer, what if the condom hadn't broken?




*Cloning has advanced to this point, the question isn't moot anymore.
**And that another thing, how can anybody who wants to control AGW be anti-choice?




Clyde, both sides are the same side. The difference is in describing a human.

---

Then there are the ones who go for implantation into the wall of the uterus. Not any different than a tape worm in the gut. It is one way, a leech sucking life out of the host.

I was planning on mentioning what any Ob/Gyn knows so this seems an opportune time: about a third of pregnancies don't even implant. They are silently expelled on the next ovulation. So, for those opposed to abortion on religious grounds, this makes God the biggest abortionist in history, more than all others put together by far. Thirty billion and counting... five thousand holocausts! Where is your outrage, sirs!

:^)

---

Then there are the ones who go for implantation into the wall of the uterus. Not any different than a tape worm in the gut. It is one way, a leech sucking life out of the host.

I was planning on mentioning what any Ob/Gyn knows so this seems an opportune time: about a third of pregnancies don't even implant. They are silently expelled on the next ovulation. So, for those opposed to abortion on religious grounds, this makes God the biggest abortionist in history, more than all others put together by far. Thirty billion and counting... five thousand holocausts! Where is your outrage, sirs!
:^)

And it's only men that have this crazy religious and "ethical" idea.
Nature doesn't work that way SIRS!

Again, Bet Rigger, your opinion and beliefs matter less to me personally than the fart of a sand flea on a camel in south sudan.

I think sociopaths don't care what others think of themselves, are you a sociopath?

The fact that you value innocent life so little, and there is no innocence greater than an unborn fetus, has nothing to do with slavery or women's rights.
I support women's rights in all aspects except ending a life because it's inconvenient or otherwise unwanted.

You are a self proclaimed libertarian and yet advocate for imposing your values on others, isn't that more than a bit hypocritical?
Inconvenient? The birth control failed, the mother was raped or other factors which you can only speculate about, yet you claim the right to impose your will on others. This is a decision that should made by the people involved not imposed by others, Your solution has a lot in common with slavery.

---

Isn't it significant that the congress population is not a reflection of the general population. And therefore the present laws or proposed laws on family planning, have been formulated by a group that is predominately males (80% of congress) and religious, mainly christian (nearly 90%).

What would the laws look like if congress was 51% female and less than 80% religious?

---

Isn't it significant that the congress population is not a reflection of the general population. And therefore the present laws or proposed laws on family planning, have been formulated by a group that is predominately males (80% of congress) and religious, mainly christian (nearly 90%).
What would the laws look like if congress was 51% female and less than 80% religious?

More humane?

Clyde, both sides are the same side. The difference is in describing a human.

Correct.

Does human life and societies protection. Start at conception. If you believe not, and I do not.

Then...

Is a nine month 'fetus', if conceived during a rape. Entitled to the same protection as a Newborn conceived during a rape. When the only difference between the two is location.

If you believe that the nine month 'fetus' should be accorded societies protection. How far back would you go, while still protecting Women's Rights?

Leaving out the crazies. See the moral and ethical dilemma.

What does rape have to do with it? Nothing, but that is our Clyde. Morals have noting to do with it either, morals being the domain of crazies, ethics being the domain of sanity.

Someone mentioned an oath, http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/11/doctors-arent-bound-hippocratic-oath/ - not what you thought it was. Also remember who the patient is, the woman, not the fetus.

As to your question Clyde, you are aware that there are places where the mother can be put to death for delivering a stillborn. It not being alive is presumptive evidence she killed it. So how far are you willing to go back?

At least I see you don't think it should be to a zygote. If it was then all those frozen zygotes, even the ones known to be horrible birth defects, would have to be implanted in some woman. Forced surrogacy!

As to our States Rights people, they want to ban it in their state, forcing women to travel to another state. Then if these women return they will arrest them and jail them for having an abortion. (That would stand in SCOTUS, it is done federally to international sex tourists)

The English language has two good words, "fetus" and "baby." We agree on what they mean. Baby breaths air. Fetus does not breath air.

So the ethical question is can society regulate the destruction of a fetus to a specific time period?

Now for the hard question. The pregnant woman suffers a traumatic injury. Medically the doctor can only save the fetus or the woman, not both. Your abortion restriction law now prevents the Doctor from even asking the woman if she wants to live, it now requires the Doctor the kill the woman to save the fetus. You have just regulated mandatory murder; You are now a murderer.

But it gets better. You abortion restrictions have now put a child on the planet, are you now going to force the mother to raise it? An unwanted child is likely going to be an abused child. So where is you mandatory adoption law, where you are selected by lottery to raise all these children society is forcing to be born? If not that then where is your welfare law that will give the mother enough money, including Obama care, to raise the child you have forced her to bear? Are you happy with single parent families? So where is your law mandating a marriage which cannot end in divorce until the child is of legal age? Toss in that fathers have to raise the child as well as the mother and require them to not abuse each other so the child grows up in a loving home.

There are a pile of competing things here, sometimes it is simply better for society to stay out of controlling people and let them live their lives as they chose. As the freaks are allegedly taught, but can't do because they are compelled to interfere, turn the other cheek.

---

Bet Rigger, your repeated comment regarding 'the condom' are personally offensive to me. I have said I was adopted, and the reason was the moral attitude at the time regarding children 'born out of wedlock'. My birth mother's youth and inexperience made her feel she could not care for me.

Your denigration of her situation with the condom comment displays the sad truth of your callousness to others. In your case a socially necessary abortion would have been appropriate.......sociopath? Look in the mirror.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

It's hilarious reading moral & ethical "mature" males talk about female issues :-)

Have you tried asking females your questions?

"And the same one, where a woman's life is not in danger, of let's say 1, 5, 10, 14 days before birth?"

Pointless question. When you get around to ask genuine & not trick questions, you may get an answer.

Ask your wife that question.

It was first asked of me, many years ago. When I was having a discussion regarding Women's Rights. Taking the correct position that Women have The Right to an Abortion.

Totally agree but the way you worded your question leaves questions to be asked. IF nothing wrong with the woman & 14 days to birth, WHY abort that late?

Answering one question with another is not very "intellectual" of you :-)
So to take a leaf out of your "book", WHY abort that late?

Mr. Kevvy...

Good luck!

Thanks. :^) Move completed and amazingly didn't have a power failure or anything else in the middle of it.

(Edit: for context for those who weren't involved originally, this entire thread up until this point was split out of the Donald Trump "45" thread.)

---

Thank you Mr Kevy for seperating this discussion to the appropriate thread. I'm sure those wishing to continue in the previous thread with the on track discussion(whatever that is), appreciate the move.

This will be my only post in this thread as I find the topic disturbing and distasteful on many levels most personal as previously stated. This is a fruitless discussion(as most in the Politics section are), and simply leads to mounting fury on both sides which the world has seen enough. Neither side will be swayed or influenced so why try to teach a snake to tap-dance?

And another Avatar goes to Bobbieland...........

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

You're welcome. :^) I certainly paid my mod dues today... whew... three pages of postings. However this is a complex issue and and a controversial one so is unlikely to go away, thus should have its own thread if for nothing else than to keep it from derailing others.

Happily the three of you who are against abortion seem pretty reasonable about it as you don't seem to want to restrict family planning/birth control in any way. Those who want to restrict both are the only ones who really grind my gears. I would not even object to abortion being restricted if it was done in a staged approach ie:

First trimester: Abortion on demand
Second trimester: Mandatory counseling and offering of adoption options unless one of the cases below
Third trimester: Only in cases of rape, incest, medical or mental issues (ie the mother's life is at risk or the baby would be born with lifelong severe problems that would require permanent care, etc.)

So responsible women who missed a period would have adequate time to determine they were pregnant and obtain an abortion before they were aborting a fetus with a functioning nervous system who may be aware of it. And others would have to have a good medically proven reason why they waited.

I also think that regardless of one's views on state medical assistance, that birth control and information about it should be considered a medical necessity and be provided free of charge if required to those who can't afford it. My reasoning is that the state by spending a dollar for a condom and a nickel for a pamphlet, or even ten bucks for a month of pills now, is saving tens of thousands later by not having to support an unwanted or abandoned child because there are no available adoption parents, or worse, hundreds of thousands to millions to prosecute and incarcerate an unwanted, abused child who turns to crime in later life as so many often do.

---

I don't think I can contribute much to this thread other than to link to a post I made some years ago. It aroused some critique at the time, but my feelings on the matter are as true today as they were then.

https://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=75070&postid=1539697

Bet Rigger, your repeated comment regarding 'the condom' are personally offensive to me.

Jaundice, I too am offended, by fabricated "facts" as you have shown a propensity to use, by slavery which you advocate, by the hypocrisy of your so called libertarian philosophy yet allows for slavery.
It's a woman's body and it is her choice, not yours! She has to deal with the consequences not you.

---

betreger, your repeated comment regarding 'the condom' are personally offensive to me.

Jaundice, I too am offended, by fabricated "facts" as you have shown a propensity to use, by slavery which you advocate, by the hypocrisy of your so called libertarian philosophy yet allows for slavery.
It's a woman's body and it is her choice, not yours! She has to deal with the consequences not you.

Some people can only connect one or two dots. I suspect, he doesn't want the possibility of any tax money being spent on abortion because tax money is his money and that makes him a rich lord. That's the last dot he can connect.

He can't connect a few more dots and see that the abortion will cost less in the long run than the money he will have to spend on guns and ammo to feel safe from the abused children born addicted he forces to exist, the welfare money the state has to pay to raise the child, the education expense for the child, the prison cell he will have to build to hold the criminal he made, the courts he will have to staff, the police forces he will need, and the rights he will have to surrender to those police forces such as stop and frisk so they make him feel safe, never mind the extra global warming his children will suffer. These dots are too nebulous for him to connect.

Or he may resort to fairies in the sky who tell him don't abort. Never mind if his fairy in the sky is there, it aborts more than are born. His fairy, the same one as daesh's, by telling him this, encourages daesh's tactic of raping a replacement army from their female captives. Of course that was the tactic back 2000 years ago when armies fought hand to hand and wars were never won, just repeated a few years later when another crop of children became battle field fodder.

No, the question is: Does society have a right to tell a woman what to do with her body? If the answer is yes, then society has a right to tell a man what to do with his body. Slavery! But slavery was moral back 2000 years ago when the fairy was invented.

betreter, eye is not a libertarian, he espouses nothing of that nature, he just intentionally fabricates that he is one to make himself feel good.

---